blog 12

Wednesday's reading and class have left me considering a concept that I have not thought about before. Once Christians' were not persecuted anymore, they had to struggle more intensively to be active, convicted, and ethical in their Christian practice/lifestyle. I have thought about the shift before, when Constantine declared Christianity a state religion, and have always viewed it in a somewhat negative light, because at that time so many pagan traditions were incorporated into Christianity in order to appease those who did not want to change. It seems that this was exactly what God warned against--I often grapple with this, wondering about the legitimacy of some of the things we do as Christians, and even whether we are truly following God's will, or just conforming to the popularity of Christian customs that aren't necessarily theologically sound. At any rate, I had not considered the aspect in which a system of ethics had to be developed once Christianity was the accepted norm. I think it is so interesting and logical that in a time of persecution, people who identified as Christians did so with great intention and great risk, and their lifestyles reflected their faith in a dramatic way, so that they acted out and confirmed their ethics daily through living as professed Christians. However, when people began converting to Christianity at a rapid rate, reflecting not necessarily true conviction but rather participation in a popular trend that seemed to be reasonable and righteous, they did not bring with them the knowledge, faith, and ardent lifestyle that was required of Christians previously. Therefore, a set of ethics had to be defined. I have been thinking about how we live today, and it seems as though we comply with the very minimal amount that we can in order to avoid breaking the rules--completely missing the point of grace, responsibility, and love. Rather than governing our lives by the principles at the heart or root of every action, we end up only half-heartedly worshiping God and acting out our Christian faith in a feeble way.

blog 11

I have been thinking this week about the concept of Christian ethics through the lens of the recent readings and have noted a few things in the readings that particularly caught my attention. I am overall considering the whole concept of Christian ethics, which must involve some interpretation of the Bible itself, along with application to modern life. This interpretation can be a dangerous privelege, I think, and must be done so responsibly, both to avoid word-for-word translation to life (missing the implications or deeper meanings involved in the Bible's lessons), and also to avoid a self-serving interpretation of the Bible's teachings to meet one's own standards of morality.
It is also interesting to me that Christian ethics has a background in the study of ethics formed by non-religious philosophers. Of course, the teachings of Jesus, for example, are accepted as being fairly basic, and in the most non-religious sense, just acceptable moral standards with which most would agree. I liked the manner in which Verhey et al's introduction compared Socrates with Jesus, because in practical application of leading a "good life," they are very similar. However, the authors then clarify that Socrates knew only the right questions to ask, and I would complete the idea by arguing that Jesus knew the right answers. Additionally, the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and calls us to much more than just a moral life, distinguishes the study of the general ethics of humanity from Christian ethics.
I also appreciated the distinction that "It is better...to be a moral person...than merely to be a person who thinks carefully about morality...[but] thinking about morality can help us become more moral people," as can following the example of those whom we accept as exhibiting moral standards. I relate to this because it ties in the personal relationship that must be involved with the study of religion--while it is wonderful to theologenize, there is also a danger of depersonalizing oneself from religion, making in more of a concept and less of a lifestyle. To study "goodness" does not translate into doing or being "goodness." One must personally connect to the lifestyle that is involved, otherwise, there is no motivation or inspiration to actually act it out.
In Janzen's chapter, I was struck by the idea, which I found to be very accurate, that our general understanding of the Old Testament figures and stories as taught us from a young age is flawed. Children tend to look at particular characters in the Bible as heroic, good, exemplary follwers of God. In doing so, they give credit to the people themselves but don't truly understand the virtues expressed in their actions--Janzen points out that Abraham, Moses, David, and others, were not necessarily the best people--they made a lot of mistakes. However, their singular actions at a particular point in God's story were good examples of moral actions, even if those characters themselves performed the actions with different intentions than those for which God used them. I also liked Janzen's argument that his examples are situational--that they are applicable within the context of the ongoing story, and not to be extracted and used in every situation in every context. They do, however, have implications for what happens later on in the overall story of the Bible.
I found Aristotle's segment to be a little more challenging, particularly in his postulation that the gods like people that "understand" life better than those who don't. Obviously, I must remember that he was not writing from a Christian perspective, and I cannot translate his use of the word gods to a Christian understanding of God. I do think, however, that it points out another danger in interpretation of ethics. While it is important to study and important to try to understand to a certain degree, I think it can be a vain attempt to insist on understanding everything--it is not our job to do so, not possible, and not always helpful or productive in our lives. As humans, the creation of God, there is a mystery in God's divinity that we cannot comprehend. However, I am reaching beyond the scope of ethics, which is, of course, important to understand in order to determine the manner in which we lead our lives. One obvious thing is that an extremely wide variety of interpretations of morality exist in our world today.

blog 10

In writing my paper about prayer and analyzing the beliefs revealed in the different prayers we pray, I have been contemplating a number of themes, particularly those addressed in our readings. The reading by Nicholas Lash intrigued me through its discussion of the manner in which we address God as our Father, and the limitedness of our ability to express our relationship with God and understand it--when we think of a father, a very human, personal experience is brought to mind, and it is problematic because we each have very different and dynamic relationships with our earthly fathers, whether good or bad. This would mean somehow that we each envision God to be somewhat different, but it is wrong to envision him as a Father in the human sense anyway, because in doing so we assume God is a creature. Additionally, as Lash explains, our tendency to interpret father in a literal, human sense, forces us to exlude the maternal in God. It is important to think about our meaning when we call on God, our Father, and what we truly believe God to be (although, no matter what we believe God is, that does not change or alter what God actually is).
I then consider Augustine's confessions, and am deeply moved by some of the seemingly simple truths with which he struggles. The overall theme seems to be, God, you are my creator--who else could have produced anything at all, let alone anything good? God, you are the only one who can forgive my debts and the debts of others. I do not need to understand you to worship or rejoice in you, and to try to understand you fully would discredit my faith. I should rather, "delight in finding you who are beyond discovery rather than fail to find you by supposing you to be discoverable." (8) Augustine concludes the section by confessing, "I will be with you since it was your gift to me that I exist." These passages bring much peace to me, because they remind me that God's existence as my creator is the truth, and I cannot fight that and do not want to, because to do so would mean to have to work endlessly to find other meaning in my life, to no avail. I am able to then think less about understanding God and more about being free in my faith and letting go of my own control.
Wadell's article on forgiveness and redemption has challenged and inspired me, of course drawing my attention to what I mean personally when I ask God, in the Lord's prayer and my own prayers, to forgive me, and if I do so with the right intentions and the right expectations. I agree that it is inappropriate to think of forgiveness as a free pass to get out of the consequences of sin--on the contrary, it can only happen alongside the earthly consequences of sin, the dealing with of which lead to redemption. The consequences of sin are inescapable, but the willingness to live forgiven makes them bearable--without this willingness, one could argue that the sinner has not truly repented of his or her sin.
Finally, I am brought to consider the meaning of a kingdom turned upside down without getting stuck on the semantics of when, where, and what this kingdom actually is and represents. Kraybill has made me consider even further what it means to ask God for God's kingdom to come and what I believe God's kingdom is, from a Christian perspective or worldview.
Each of these readings, as I prepare my paper, forces me to really challenge the substance of my beliefs as reflected through prayer. In particular, in the analysis of John Baillie's prayer, I must step aside from my feelings that it is a sincere and poetic prayer, prayed with the best of intention and beliefs, and really examine what the prayer says about the way that Baillie believes in and perceives God, and whether that is an accurate perception based on the fundamental Christian beliefs portrayed through the Lord's prayer.